The High Court has dismissed Geraldine and Joseph Mooney’s appeal against a Circuit Court possession order and granted the plaintiffs an order for vacant possession of their home at 8 Fairways Park, Griffith Road, Dublin 11.
In a judgment delivered on 22 June 2021, Ms Justice Niamh Hyland said the appeal could be decided on affidavit evidence. She rejected the defendants’ request for a plenary hearing, finding there were no factual disputes or complex legal issues requiring one. The court did not remit the case to the Circuit Court or direct a plenary hearing in the High Court.
The dispute concerned a January 2000 letter confirming that the mortgage had been converted to an annuity repayment method. The letter stated that the loan would expire in July 2007, but also gave a term of 271 months. The plaintiffs said the 2007 date was a typographical error and should have been July 2022. The defendants argued that the letter recorded an agreement to repay the mortgage by 2007 and that they had met their obligations.
The original loan, advanced in 1992, was for 30 years. Justice Hyland found that the 2000 letters did not establish a contractual amendment: the January letter did not accept the eight-year term proposed by Mrs Mooney, and its conflicting dates and term left no certainty about the supposed new agreement.
The defendants also relied on estoppel, arguing that the plaintiffs should not be allowed to enforce the original mortgage because of the 2000 letter. The judge noted that in September 2006 their solicitor queried why the mortgage remained active. The plaintiffs replied that the loan had not expired, 190 months remained, and about €60,500 was outstanding, with arrears of €1,534.14. The court found that this response made the position clear before repayments stopped in October 2007, so the defendants could not reasonably rely on the 2000 letter to justify stopping payments.
The judgment records that no repayments had been made since October 2007. As of 30 November 2020, the plaintiffs asserted a balance of €187,666.95, including €165,408.54 in arrears. The judge said the plaintiffs had met the statutory requirements for possession under section 62(7) of the Registration of Title Act 1964, which the defendants had not challenged. She dismissed the appeal and granted vacant possession to the plaintiffs.